All but one of my Smith wheelguns are from the pre lock era. My 642 has no lock but was made when most Smith revolvers were made with the idiot lock. I know it has MIM parts and that's ok. It has served me very well.

That lock just hurts my eyes.

Whatever year it was when they forgot how to line up the barrels to the frames. I’m sorry, but that level of incompetence in Quality Control is mind boggling.

quote:

Originally posted by Abn556:
Whatever year it was when they forgot how to line up the barrels to the frames. I’m sorry, but that level of incompetence in Quality Control is mind boggling.

Saw the same thing with a batch of Ruger GP100's around 2014 or so.

The market share is in Semiautomatic Pistols as opposed to Revolvers. The good old days are passé. Modern manufacturing as such and hand fitting is a confliction in concept and terminology. I go back with S&W revolvers to the late nineteen-sixties. S&W had quality assurance problems into the seventies. If you want craftsmanship/hand fitting your going to pay for it which makes the revolver unaffordable for a high percentage of your customer base.

I snap posted essentially the same thing, then saw that you beat me to the punch and deleted it. They can't make enough money selling all steel revolvers to give them the attention they used to. They are too labor intensive to get to the level of fit and finish they achieved in the past. They do what they can do with CNC machining, MIM, and simple assembly.

quote:

Originally posted by lowflash:
The market share is in Semiautomatic Pistols as opposed to Revolvers. The good old days are passé. Modern manufacturing as such and hand fitting is a confliction in concept and terminology. I go back with S&W revolvers to the late nineteen-sixties. S&W had quality assurance problems into the seventies. If you want craftsmanship/hand fitting your going to pay for it which makes the revolver unaffordable for a high percentage of your customer base.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BBMW,

There is a lot of discussion on this issue in the S&W forums, and for good reason.

S&W revolvers today are functional and probably not much worse or better than in the past. Aesthetically, they are not up to past execution; the "blued" finishes are really black coatings, unlike the deeply blued revolvers of yesteryear; MIM is MIM, fully functional we are told but not inviting confidence or exemplifying hand craftmanship; and the lock is the lock, at very best able to be ignored by some, but liked by no one.

The clocked barrel issue (the front sight post leaning) is a common topic on S&W forums. It is hard to say how often it is really found on a new revolver -- I've never seen one with a clocked barrel -- but no one should accept such a revolver at the point of sale.

Anyone purchasing a revolver from S&W should give it a thorough going over. The endshake, cylinder gap, cylinder rotation, barrel alignment, overall finish, etc., should all be checked. There are some good "inspect your revolver" posts on the S&W Forum.

If you find a problem, reject that revolver at the point of transfer; or buy it and send it to the factory (S&W will fix it for free if you send it back in).

The two-piece barrel, which is found in some but not most S&W revolver variants, saves the company money and is meant to solve the clocked barrel problem. (There were some early reports of two-piece barrels breaking, but the design is inherently accurate and durable). We may see more two piece barrels in the future.

Bottom line is that S&W revolvers as made today have changed as manufacturing techniques have evolved but still work great. Older ones (pre-lock, pinned and recessed, machined hammers, really blued, etc.) are available used from many sources and seem to provide a richer sense of enjoyment in ownership, but the new ones work fine. Revolvers still enjoy some advantages over semi-automatics (that's a whole 'nuther thread) but require some slightly different skills to own and operate. They are not for everyone.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: RoverSig,

quote:

Originally posted by hrcjon:

quote:

why did you elect to remove the internal safety from your revolver?

I was told (by others, I'm not a revolver guy) that it reduced reliability. and of course in matches that's the key. you have to finish to finish first.

The same holds true in a firefight. For you, removing the lock is the solution. For others, purchasing an older revolver sans lock is the answer. On one point we all agree - nobody likes the lock. Thanks!

I have/have had several no lock/no MIM S&W revolvers, and sold many in the pre lock/MIM days. even back then (early 1990's) I saw right out of the box barrels canted, barrels with torque stretch around the forcing cone area, timing not very good, etc. Just the same I do like older ones with the firing pin on the hammer, no MIM, and don't want any with a lock.

I have an all original 1917 and marvel at its build quality. Tight like a vault and so smooth, SA trigger that would make you cry, perfect fit, barrel dead straight, perfect timing, no marring of pins/screws, beautiful finish and stamps... Made over 100 years ago during wartime, by truly gifted, competent CRAFTSMAN without computers/cnc, and without compromise. Simply amazing what these skilled hands could turn out.